From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alternative Automotive, Inc. v. Mowbray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 12, 1984
101 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

April 12, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Cook, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, O'Donnell and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment was denied by Special Term on constraint of Barasch v Micucci ( 49 N.Y.2d 594) and Eaton v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. ( 56 N.Y.2d 900). A subsequent statutory amendment restored discretion to excuse default based on law office failure (see L 1983, ch 318). The new law applies to all cases still pending before a court ( Weissblum v Mostafzafan Foundation, 60 N.Y.2d 637). The reasons for the brief default herein were excusable, and questions of fact suggesting a meritorious defense are raised by the verified answer, which may be regarded as an affidavit (CPLR 105, subd [t]).


Summaries of

Alternative Automotive, Inc. v. Mowbray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 12, 1984
101 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Alternative Automotive, Inc. v. Mowbray

Case Details

Full title:ALTERNATIVE AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Respondent, v. JAMES J. MOWBRAY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 12, 1984

Citations

101 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Vierya v. Briggs Stratton Corp.

It is well settled that a party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse therefor and…

Calaci v. Allied Interstate, Inc.

The court erred in rejecting that excuse on the ground that “law office failure is not an excuse that is…